Could the CPK be using a BOAT?

[trabuco]

Oct 17, 2018 2:36:14 GMT mustangman said:

Oct 16, 2018 17:27:15 GMT trabuco said:

I've got a feeling window was broke by someone trying to push it with another vehicle. It's just my speculation.

Does anyone know just how much the window was broke? Was the entire window broke out and all glass gone from the opening or was the window broken just to get a view inside the vehicle? Was the hatchback made completely of glass? Was the front driver's door open when car was found? Maybe the breaking of the hatchback window was done to destroy evidence? But what kind of evidence could that be?

I recall reading on this site that the back window was broken by one of the first Police officer's on the scene because he saw people in the car and was just trying to save lives, he didn't know they were already dead.  since it was too hard to enter the car from the side doors due to the heavy brush, the officer broke out the back window. 

Yes, the official story is LE broke the window. But doing so could have destroyed evidence.  I was just thinking about the Call / Hailey case in which we probably would not have ever known the truth if Keith Call's Dad had not seen his son's car that morning and stopped to look inside of it. Dad didn't see any clothes in Keith's car. When LE found out what Dad saw they came out and said they had taken the clothes and brought them back. But doing so could have destroyed evidence. In the Knobling / Edwards case it is agreed upon by all that the killer brought their clothes back and placed them in Knobling's truck. In the Call / Hailey case LE admits they brought their clothes back and placed them in Call's car. When LE is doing the same thing the killer is doing it makes me suspect more than ever someone in LE is the killer.

[(AQ)]

Oct 16, 2018 13:43:05 GMT hoth said:

Oct 16, 2018 7:12:14 GMT cleopatra said:

I was looking through my old notes.  As it turns out, many original notes in the police files indicated that Cathy's car was FIRST pushed, in attempt apparently to roll it down into the river.  THEN, it got stopped in a brush.  That may have been the point the killer began to unwind, when something he rehearsed doing failed.  The reports then went on to say that it appeared that the killer NEXT RESORTED to an attempt to burn the car, which as we know also failed.

That is what I got from a report or excerpt of what was written by FBI Special Agent Robert W. Meadows, who worked tirelessly on the CPM cases.  He was one of the first LE to believe the four murders were linked to one killer.  According to Agent Meadows, from the reports he inherited and his own analysis of the crime scene, the car was pushed first, then attempted to be lit on fire.

If this is true then that brings up some questions. From what I’ve read, there was diesel poured inside the car. So that would mean that the killer was able to get inside the car after it was in the brush. If that’s the case, why was it so hard for the rangers to get into the car such that they had to break the back window? Who were the first rangers to get to the car and who broke the window?

I'm not quite following this - the car was pushed first, then attempted to be lit. 

I thought matches & cigarettes were found up on the roadway area, or just off, and that the car was pushed down an embankment (from the roadway).  A couple of places stated that the car was difficult to get to when found in and amongst the brush.   So how could they have poured diesel in it?

The 1st two LE on scene were Rangers Jim Redford & Byrd Ewell.  It is unknown which of the two, but one of them, broke the rear window.

[(AQ)]

Sorry, Trabuco, cross posted w/ you

[cleopatra]

Oct 17, 2018 3:41:37 GMT (AQ) said:

Oct 16, 2018 13:43:05 GMT hoth said:

If this is true then that brings up some questions. From what I’ve read, there was diesel poured inside the car. So that would mean that the killer was able to get inside the car after it was in the brush. If that’s the case, why was it so hard for the rangers to get into the car such that they had to break the back window? Who were the first rangers to get to the car and who broke the window?

I'm not quite following this - the car was pushed first, then attempted to be lit. 

I thought matches & cigarettes were found up on the roadway area, or just off, and that the car was pushed down an embankment (from the roadway).  A couple of places stated that the car was difficult to get to when found in and amongst the brush.   So how could they have poured diesel in it?

The 1st two LE on scene were Rangers Jim Redford & Byrd Ewell.  It is unknown which of the two, but one of them, broke the rear window.

Maybe the matches seen above were used to light the cigarettes.  

I read that Ranger Clyde Yee was one of the first responders.  
That he was questioned and then dismissed  after  passing  a polygraph.

[cleopatra]

[hoth]

Oct 17, 2018 3:41:37 GMT (AQ) said:

Oct 16, 2018 13:43:05 GMT hoth said:

If this is true then that brings up some questions. From what I’ve read, there was diesel poured inside the car. So that would mean that the killer was able to get inside the car after it was in the brush. If that’s the case, why was it so hard for the rangers to get into the car such that they had to break the back window? Who were the first rangers to get to the car and who broke the window?

I'm not quite following this - the car was pushed first, then attempted to be lit. 

I thought matches & cigarettes were found up on the roadway area, or just off, and that the car was pushed down an embankment (from the roadway).  A couple of places stated that the car was difficult to get to when found in and amongst the brush.   So how could they have poured diesel in it?

The 1st two LE on scene were Rangers Jim Redford & Byrd Ewell.  It is unknown which of the two, but one of them, broke the rear window.

. We are told two contradictory things:

1. The car was so wedged into the bushes that the first troopers couldn’t get into the car and so they had to break the back window of the car in order to get into it

2. The latest info from Cleo states that AFTER the car was pushed down and got caught in the underbrush, the killer panicked and tried to light the car with the gas. The gas was doused all over the inside of the car and therefore it was not impossible after the car was wedged into the underbrush for someone to enter the car from the doors. Consequently, why did the rangers have to break the back window?

[(AQ)]

Oct 17, 2018 12:17:21 GMT hoth said:

Oct 17, 2018 3:41:37 GMT (AQ) said:

I'm not quite following this - the car was pushed first, then attempted to be lit. 

I thought matches & cigarettes were found up on the roadway area, or just off, and that the car was pushed down an embankment (from the roadway).  A couple of places stated that the car was difficult to get to when found in and amongst the brush.   So how could they have poured diesel in it?

The 1st two LE on scene were Rangers Jim Redford & Byrd Ewell.  It is unknown which of the two, but one of them, broke the rear window.

. We are told two contradictory things:

1. The car was so wedged into the bushes that the first troopers couldn’t get into the car and so they had to break the back window of the car in order to get into it

2. The latest info from Cleo states that AFTER the car was pushed down and got caught in the underbrush, the killer panicked and tried to light the car with the gas. The gas was doused all over the inside of the car and therefore it was not impossible after the car was wedged into the underbrush for someone to enter the car from the doors. Consequently, why did the rangers have to break the back window?

And what evidence is there that the car was attempted to be lit when down in the brush, near the river?   (Whereas, at the top of the embankment, they had numerous matches & some cigarettes)

[mustangman]

Oct 17, 2018 13:09:50 GMT (AQ) said:

Oct 17, 2018 12:17:21 GMT hoth said:

. We are told two contradictory things:

1. The car was so wedged into the bushes that the first troopers couldn’t get into the car and so they had to break the back window of the car in order to get into it

2. The latest info from Cleo states that AFTER the car was pushed down and got caught in the underbrush, the killer panicked and tried to light the car with the gas. The gas was doused all over the inside of the car and therefore it was not impossible after the car was wedged into the underbrush for someone to enter the car from the doors. Consequently, why did the rangers have to break the back window?

And what evidence is there that the car was attempted to be lit when down in the brush, near the river?   (Whereas, at the top of the embankment, they had numerous matches & some cigarettes)

AQ, below is a quote from Cleo stating that the car was pushed into the brush then tried to be set on fire.  I think this is where the confusion begins.

__________________________________________________________________________

Cleo stated in an earlier post in this thread:  "I was looking through my old notes. As it turns out, many original notes in the police files indicated that Cathy's car was FIRST pushed, in attempt apparently to roll it down into the river. THEN, it got stopped in a brush. That may have been the point the killer began to unwind, when something he rehearsed doing failed. The reports then went on to say that it appeared that the killer NEXT RESORTED to an attempt to burn the car, which as we know also failed.

That is what I got from a report or excerpt of what was written by FBI Special Agent Robert W. Meadows, who worked tirelessly on the CPM cases. He was one of the first LE to believe the four murders were linked to one killer. According to Agent Meadows, from the reports he inherited and his own analysis of the crime scene, the car was pushed first, then attempted to be lit on fire."
__________________________________________________________________________

I've always read that the CPK tried to light the car on fire first then pushed it down the embankment.  Now I'm confused.  Can we get clarification on this?? 

thanks

[maxxcat2018]

Only problem I have with a boat if they're the typical boat anyone has is they tend to be slower and louder. You could tell a sound of a boat. Seems like it would be better to just park a vehicle somewhere, go back to vehicle and leave.

[(AQ)]

Oct 17, 2018 13:24:50 GMT mustangman said:

Oct 17, 2018 13:09:50 GMT (AQ) said:

And what evidence is there that the car was attempted to be lit when down in the brush, near the river?   (Whereas, at the top of the embankment, they had numerous matches & some cigarettes)

AQ, below is a quote from Cleo stating that the car was pushed into the brush then tried to be set on fire.  I think this is where the confusion begins.

__________________________________________________________________________

Cleo stated in an earlier post in this thread:  "I was looking through my old notes. As it turns out, many original notes in the police files indicated that Cathy's car was FIRST pushed, in attempt apparently to roll it down into the river. THEN, it got stopped in a brush. That may have been the point the killer began to unwind, when something he rehearsed doing failed. The reports then went on to say that it appeared that the killer NEXT RESORTED to an attempt to burn the car, which as we know also failed.

That is what I got from a report or excerpt of what was written by FBI Special Agent Robert W. Meadows, who worked tirelessly on the CPM cases. He was one of the first LE to believe the four murders were linked to one killer. According to Agent Meadows, from the reports he inherited and his own analysis of the crime scene, the car was pushed first, then attempted to be lit on fire."
__________________________________________________________________________

I've always read that the CPK tried to light the car on fire first then pushed it down the embankment.  Now I'm confused.  Can we get clarification on this?? 

thanks

Mustangman, thanks for reposting this. 

I think we are reading too much into the passage I highlighted.  Nothing says the car was pushed, went down the embankment, and then was set afire.  It says the attempt to push it failed, and then there was an attempt.  Apparently (possibly?) all at the top of the embankment

[(AQ)]

Oct 17, 2018 13:30:32 GMT maxxcat2018 said:

Only problem I have with a boat if they're the typical boat anyone has is they tend to be slower and louder. You could tell a sound of a boat. Seems like it would be better to just park a vehicle somewhere, go back to vehicle and leave.

Great point Maxxcat2018 !!

[mustangman]

Oct 17, 2018 13:30:32 GMT maxxcat2018 said:

Only problem I have with a boat if they're the typical boat anyone has is they tend to be slower and louder. You could tell a sound of a boat. Seems like it would be better to just park a vehicle somewhere, go back to vehicle and leave.

I have always struggled with the idea that the CPK used a boat, but it could've been possible. From most of the pictures I've seen,the shoreline along the Colonial Parkway is mostly sand or has places that a small boat could make portage. In the murders of Cathy/Becky & Keith/Sandra, yes a small boat could've been used, but most small boat motors use regular gas not diesel, so why was diesel fuel brought to the scene? If it was a larger boat (large enough that it had diesel engines) it would've had to anchor in deeper water and the CPK would've had to swim or use a small skiff to get ashore. If he swam, he would've had to bring the heavy Diesel fuel can (a full can of gas does not float), which doesn't seem likely. But anchoring a large boat offshore then using a skiff seems as unlikely also.  Setting a car on fire near the shoreline then driving away in a boat looking back at the flames might have been what the CPK intended, or why else create a fire and attract attention? 

[maxxcat2018]

Could be any number of reasons to have diesel around. Farm equipment if I remember correctly uses diesel. And no ones reported ever hearing a boat in the area before or after. I'm more suspicious of the van after Keith and Sandy's murder.

[englishman]

Oct 17, 2018 2:24:14 GMT mustangman said:

Oct 14, 2018 19:03:51 GMT englishman said:

So matches would be pointless it would need something which burns for a while like a signal flare.

If the CPK was LE or a Park Ranger, wouldn't they have had a signal flare in their patrol car?  Most Police have covered enough truck accidents to have learned that diesel fuel needs something more than a match to ignite it.  Why were matches used to try to start the fire then if the killer was LE, maybe he knew that using a signal flair would point back towards LE, possibly?  The CPK definitely wanted the vehicle to be seen on fire.  Maybe CPK was going to lite the car on fire and get away across the bay and watch the fire from a safe location, he didn't care about who else saw the fire or how risky it was, he just wanted to be able to get the thrill of seeing his own handy work.  When the fire didn't lite, he might have thought he could still see the car at daylight across the bay if it was closer to the edge of the water, or why else push the car into the bushes at the waters edge?  heck just moments earlier he was intent on creating a huge blaze, he wasn't trying to conceal the car from being found, he wanted it to be seen by himself.  LE thought that Cathy/Becky might have been murdered at another turnout on the Parkway (maybe the more secluded turnout where gay activities were known to occur) then the killer drove their car to a turnout that was much less secluded where he could easily see the fire from afar or why even risk being caught by moving the car to another location?  Possibly his car was parked in the secluded turnout before Cathy/Becky arrived and after dumping Cathy's car he walked back to his own car.  I've not seen or heard of Police or Park Rangers carrying a can of diesel fuel around in their cars and not many civilians did that back in 80's or today.  Back in the 80's there were very few diesel cars or diesel light trucks, mostly diesel fuel was used in Semi-Trucks, odds are you would not run into any stranded motorist who drove a diesel vehicle, it would make more sense to carry regular fuel if your intention was to help someone.  If the killer had the diesel fuel can in his vehicle and the killings took place elsewhere, he would've had to bring the fuel can in the victims car & take the can when he left, but he risked being seen walking back to his vehicle with the gas can, unless he walked along the shoreline back to his boat?  Sorry for the rambling, I couldn't find the thread titled "ramblings".     

I'm sure they would have flares, same with fisherman etc, perhaps it didn't cross his mind to use them or something disturbed him. I did think at one point he could be impatient because if he wanted to light the car on fire he could of, however if you look the murders CPK is being linked to and the dates it leads me believe his a patient person waits up the late hours and strikes around national holidays and weekends. 

Most of us are guilty of that tbh, I appreciate the comments on the Diesel fuel and it's an interesting way to look at what kind of people would have access to it in the 80's.

[mustangman]

Oct 17, 2018 17:52:30 GMT englishman said:

Oct 17, 2018 2:24:14 GMT mustangman said:

If the CPK was LE or a Park Ranger, wouldn't they have had a signal flare in their patrol car?  Most Police have covered enough truck accidents to have learned that diesel fuel needs something more than a match to ignite it.  Why were matches used to try to start the fire then if the killer was LE, maybe he knew that using a signal flair would point back towards LE, possibly?  The CPK definitely wanted the vehicle to be seen on fire.  Maybe CPK was going to lite the car on fire and get away across the bay and watch the fire from a safe location, he didn't care about who else saw the fire or how risky it was, he just wanted to be able to get the thrill of seeing his own handy work.  When the fire didn't lite, he might have thought he could still see the car at daylight across the bay if it was closer to the edge of the water, or why else push the car into the bushes at the waters edge?  heck just moments earlier he was intent on creating a huge blaze, he wasn't trying to conceal the car from being found, he wanted it to be seen by himself.  LE thought that Cathy/Becky might have been murdered at another turnout on the Parkway (maybe the more secluded turnout where gay activities were known to occur) then the killer drove their car to a turnout that was much less secluded where he could easily see the fire from afar or why even risk being caught by moving the car to another location?  Possibly his car was parked in the secluded turnout before Cathy/Becky arrived and after dumping Cathy's car he walked back to his own car.  I've not seen or heard of Police or Park Rangers carrying a can of diesel fuel around in their cars and not many civilians did that back in 80's or today.  Back in the 80's there were very few diesel cars or diesel light trucks, mostly diesel fuel was used in Semi-Trucks, odds are you would not run into any stranded motorist who drove a diesel vehicle, it would make more sense to carry regular fuel if your intention was to help someone.  If the killer had the diesel fuel can in his vehicle and the killings took place elsewhere, he would've had to bring the fuel can in the victims car & take the can when he left, but he risked being seen walking back to his vehicle with the gas can, unless he walked along the shoreline back to his boat?  Sorry for the rambling, I couldn't find the thread titled "ramblings".     

I'm sure they would have flares, same with fisherman etc, perhaps it didn't cross his mind to use them or something disturbed him. I did think at one point he could be impatient because if he wanted to light the car on fire he could of, however if you look the murders CPK is being linked to and the dates it leads me believe his a patient person waits up the late hours and strikes around national holidays and weekends. 

Most of us are guilty of that tbh, I appreciate the comments on the Diesel fuel and it's an interesting way to look at what kind of people would have access to it in the 80's.

Yes I agree that most Police & Park Rangers have flares in their car, I was just wondering out loud, why didn't he use them?  I'm not convinced that CPK was a patient person.  Meaning I don't think he stalked his victims or pre-planned the murders.  It seems he happened upon the victims, who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and made his decision to kill them at that moment.  The most I see CPK doing what would be labeled as "patient" would be if he was lying in wait at the locations where he chose his victims.  I don't think he was patient, he saw an opportunity at the right time and sprung into action, maybe he accidentally grabbed the can of diesel fuel in his haste.